On August 22, 2025, a panel of three Tennessee judges issued a
significant ruling on the limit imposed by the Tennessee Constitution on
the scope of authority of the State of Tennessee to infringe rights of
individuals to keep and bear arms. In Stephen Hughes, et al., v. Bill Lee, et al.,
Gibson Chancery No: 24475 judges Michael Mansfield, M. Wyatt Burk, and
Lisa Nidiffer Rice issued an unanimous 44 page ruling in which they
declared unconstitutional two Tennessee statutes. First, court held
that Tennessee’s “intent to go armed” statute violates the Tennessee
Constitution and the Second Amendment. Second, the ruling declared
unconstitutional Tennessee’s statute which makes it a criminal offense
to merely carry certain weapons in parks and recreational areas even if
for self-defense. (see prior post)
The named defendants are various government officials including
Governor Bill Lee and Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti. All of these
government officials had taken oaths of office to uphold the
constitutions and to protect the rights of the citizens of Tennessee.
Yet, with the exception of Paul Thomas, the Sheriff of Gibson County,
who refused to defend these statutes, all of the remaining defendants
expended significant taxpayer resources and the involvement of numerous
attorneys acting under the authority of Attorney General Skrmetti in
efforts to shield these statutes from constitutional challenge. The
court’s ruling rejects substantially all of the efforts of Bill Lee,
Jonathan Skrmetti and the other defendants to continue the enforcement
of these statutes.
Declaring these two statutes unconstitutional, raises the question, among others, of “what does that mean?”
The fact is that the impact is substantial and restorative of the
rights that for more than two centuries our state and federal
constitutions have declared were shielded from government infringement.
This ruling impacts not only these statutes but other statutes which
operate under or because of these now unconstitutional statutes. Let’s
start with some foundational constitutional issues.
The court’s decision contains, like the United States Supreme Court’s landmark holding in Bruen,
a detailed framework under which challenges to the constitutionality of
many of Tennessee’s firearms laws (including ones that have not yet
been filed) are to be considered. The court notes that while
Tennessee’s constitution can provide greater protections of our rights
than those contained in the Second Amendment, Tennessee’s constitution
and its laws cannot fall below the threshold of the Second Amendment’s
“shall not be infringed” mandate. The Supreme Court declared that to
be the law in 2010 in the McDonald decision (and many of
Tennessee’s Legislators and Governors have ignored that ruling for the
last 16 years). Thus, this court’s ruling concludes the constitutional
analysis changed “when the Supreme Court of the United States held that
the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Second Amendment against the
several States in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742,
791 (2010). And, as is also discussed below, it is a Second Amendment
analysis that this Court must perform in considering Plaintiffs’
challenges under Article I, Section 26.”
Returning to the court’s ruling, the first statute the court
addressed is Tennessee’s “intent to go armed” statute that is contained
in Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1307(a)(1). That single sentence statute
provides “A person commits an offense who carries, with the intent to go
armed, a firearm or a club.” Thus, the statute makes it a criminal
offense to carry any firearm at any time and at any place, including a
person’s on property or in their own home, “with the intent to go
armed.” Consequently, an officer would have reasonable cause to
believe a crime is being committed just by observing a person carry or
wearing a firearm – in public but also even in their own yard or in
their own home. While, the statutes do provide certain affirmative
defenses, such as the individual had a handgun permit or that they were
in their own home, but those defenses do not shield the individual from
being stopped, questioned or arrested. Indeed, Tennessee law currently
puts the burden on the individual to raise and demonstrate those
defenses at trial.
The significance of Tennessee’s “intent to go armed” statute is that
it is that sentence that substantially precluded Tennessee from being
considered a real constitutional carry state – at least as an initial
point of analysis. It is that specific sentence that Tennessee
Firearms Association has fought for decades to eliminate. It is that
specific sentence that numerous constitutionally principled state
legislators have proposed legislation to repeal. And, significantly,
it is that specific sentence that Tennessee’s Republican controlled
Legislature, principally its leaders Cameron Sexton, Randy McNally, Jack
Johnson and William Lamberth, has failed to repeal. Thus, the
declaration that the “intent to go armed” statute is unconstitutional,
which rendered it void, that potentially entirely transforms Tennessee
to a state that as a general premise no longer makes it a crime for an
individual to carry a firearm (or other weapon) merely to be armed.
This declaration, assuming the government tyrants do not appeal, is
fundamentally transitional and restorative.
A second potential consequence of this ruling is that the statutory
scheme in Tennessee which allowed, but only as affirmative defenses to a
crime, for some individuals to carry a handgun with the intent to go
armed is now moot. Since the handgun permit, as an affirmative defense,
was limited to handguns, there was no broadly applicable law or defense
in Tennessee that allowed the carry, with the intent to be armed, of
rifles or shotguns (although reportedly more than 40 other states do
allow that). But, it was the intent to go armed statute than made
carrying the rifle or shotgun a crime. By declaring the intent to go
armed statute unconstitutional, it would appear that those who can
lawfully possess a rifle or shotgun can now carry those arms in
Tennessee.
A third potential consequence of this ruling is that the “permitless
carry” law found in Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1307(g) is now likely moot.
Many will recall that this is the legislation that Bill Lee
misrepresented as being his “constitutional carry” law and that Senator
Jack Johnson and Rep. William Lamberth carried in the Legislature which
was misrepresented to the public as a constitutional carry law. But,
-1307(g) is written as a “defense” to the intent to go armed law and
since that law is now declared unconstitutional there is no functional
need for a defense to an unconstitutional statute.
A fourth potential consequence of this ruling is that it puts the
state and the entire law enforcement network in Tennessee on notice
(including district attorneys) that these statutes are unconstitutional.
As such, attempts to enforce these two statutes by government
officials should give rise to claims of federal civil rights violations
under this ruling, the Second Amendment and the 14th Amendment.
A fifth potential consequence is that numerous legislators who are
now or will be seeking re-election and that numerous other candidates
for public office should be carefully examined. Questions should be
asked of whether these individuals have voted against efforts to repeal
these laws in the past. Did these individuals carry legislation to
repeal these unconstitutional laws? Which legislators, particularly
those in leadership like Cameron Sexton, Randy McNally, Jack Johnson and
William Lamberth, who have held positions of authority that would have
made their support of repealing legislation more likely to succeed have
failed or refused to vigorously support the efforts to restore and
protect our rights. Voters should consider these failures (or efforts)
as litmus tests of constitutional stewardships and work hard to defeat
any election or re-election efforts of those who have stonewalled or
entirely blocked efforts to repeal unconstitutional statutes.
A sixth potential consequence is that the court’s thorough analysis
can and should form the framework on which other unconstitutional
statutes (not just those falling under the Second Amendment but also
those falling under perhaps the First Amendment like Jack Johnson’s
legislation to micro-manage non-governmental political parties in ways
that violate the First Amendment) can and should be challenged.
Tennesseans should see clearly that their rights are not always being
protected by our governors, state agencies and legislators – sometimes
those are the very tyrants of oppression. Tennesseans should
increasingly consider the authority of the judicial branch to strike
down unconstitutional actions of the other two branches as a necessary
tool to restrain tyranny from the other two branches.
Another major consideration
that Tennesseans need to be prepared to address is what are the
government officials who created and preserved these unconstitutional
statutes going to do now?
- Is Governor Bill Lee going to appeal the decision which now creates constitutional carry in Tennessee and that strikes down at least one unconstitutional gun free zone?
- Is Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti going to appeal the
decision which now creates constitutional carry in Tennessee and that
strikes down at least one unconstitutional gun free zone?
- Which Legislators are going to embrace this ruling?
- Which Legislators (particularly the “stonewalling tyrants”) are
going to push new legislation to recreate these infringements or try to
weasel around the court’s ruling?
- Which candidates for public office (including those running for
Governor and federal offices) are going to unequivocally demand that all
infringements prohibited by the Second Amendment be immediately
repealed?
- Are local district attorneys and judges going to follow this ruling or ignore it?
- Are local and state law enforcement going to follow this ruling or ignore it?
Can you imagine – if you like horror movies you likely can –
government officials who are sworn by mandated oaths to protect our
rights now taking action to circumvent or eliminate constitutional carry
in Tennessee? Given the efforts by TFA to achieve constitutional
carry in the Legislature and those government officials and legislators
who opposed those efforts, it is a real and present danger to the
continued exercise of constitutional freedoms in Tennessee that such
efforts will be made.
If you appreciate the work that these Tennessee Firearms Association
members did to serve as plaintiffs in this lawsuit and the work that TFA
has done to try to repeal these unconstitutional laws in the past,
please consider joining and supporting these efforts. If you want to
help to fund this lawsuit (there will almost certainly be an appeal) or
other similar lawsuits to defend our rights, you can consider tax
deductible donations to the Tennessee Firearms Foundation.
What can you do now?
- read this opinion
- watch for this and additional reports on the impact of this ruling
- take copies of this opinion and these reports to your legislators
and demand answers as to why they failed to take action so that this
lawsuit would not have been required
- find constitutionally minded stewards to replace the legislators and governors who have failed us
